The origin(s) of replication and translation

[PlastikBuddha]

Unicorns obviously existed. They are compared to the strength and power of God in many places in scripture. How the medieval artists came to depict them as beautiful horse like creatures is a mystery for historians to solve. There is no question in my mind that they were some kind of large and powerful dinosaur, making the comparison with God as apt as possible in the ancient world. This is just one more piece of evidence that dinosaurs lasted long enough to be seen by humans, as we see documented in many pieces of ancient literature, which usually called them dragons.

Wow. Just wow.
Bob b said:
"There is no question in my mind that they (unicorns) were some kind of large and powerful dinosaur, making the comparison with God as apt as possible in the ancient world."
Do you seriously expect to be taken seriously by anyone after posting this compost heap of inspired nonsense? Because the bible mentions them, unicorns "obviously existed" but they were really dinosaurs? Do you have ANYTHING to back that up and save your reputation from the inevitable slings and arrows of dementia and drinking antifreeze that are sure to follow? It's not to late to come back to the light of critical thinking and scientific inquiry wherein conclusion follows premise, not vice versa!

 

[bob b]

Wow. Just wow.
Bob b said:
"There is no question in my mind that they (unicorns) were some kind of large and powerful dinosaur, making the comparison with God as apt as possible in the ancient world."
Do you seriously expect to be taken seriously by anyone after posting this compost heap of inspired nonsense? Because the bible mentions them, unicorns "obviously existed" but they were really dinosaurs? Do you have ANYTHING to back that up and save your reputation from the inevitable slings and arrows of dementia and drinking antifreeze that are sure to follow? It's not to late to come back to the light of critical thinking and scientific inquiry wherein conclusion follows premise, not vice versa!

It is a pet peeve of mind that people talk about unicorns not existing even though they are compared to the strength and power of God in many places in scripture.

I did a detailed analysis of their usage in scripture and found that the usual artistic depictions of unicorns is just another "urban myth", like the idea that people used to believe in a flat Earth.

 

[SUTG]

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a unicorn.

 

[bob b]

So getting back to the subject of this thread, is there still anyone here who would deny that the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system is another "evolutionary dilemma"?

 

[mighty_duck]

So getting back to the subject of this thread, is there still anyone here who would deny that the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system is another "evolutionary dilemma"?

It is certainly a dilemma. Now what?

 

[SUTG]

So getting back to the subject of this thread, is there still anyone here who would deny that the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system is another "evolutionary dilemma"?

Eh. I don't think it is that bad, and it isn't within the scope of the ToE anyways, since the ToE sorta starts in the middle.

 

[bob b]

It is certainly a dilemma. Now what?

That's all I wanted evolutionists to admit.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

That's all I wanted evolutionists to admit.

Scientific solutions begin with dilemmas.

 

[bob b]

Eh. I don't think it is that bad, and it isn't within the scope of the ToE anyways, since the ToE sorta starts in the middle.

Nice try, but traditionally it was said that evolution started with the first "replicating molecule". Now it appears you want to change that to "the first creature with a DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system."

Or would you rather opt for the "infinity of universes" solution?

 

[mighty_duck]

That's all I wanted evolutionists to admit.

We haven't figured everything out yet. Is that news?

In fact, there is a long standing thread about things we haven't quite figured out yet called "cell trends too". You should check it out

Anyone who expects science to answer all possible questions at this point in time is going to be disappointed. It shows a basic misunderstanding of science. Once we do get answers for our current questions, there are bound to be new unanswered questions. Science does not fill these gaps with supernatural non-explanations, but instead continually looks for better explanations.

 

[bob b]

We haven't figured everything out yet. Is that news?

In fact, there is a long standing thread about things we haven't quite figured out yet called "cell trends too". You should check it out

Anyone who expects science to answer all possible questions at this point in time is going to be disappointed. It shows a basic misunderstanding of science. Once we do get answers for our current questions, there are bound to be new unanswered questions. Science does not fill these gaps with supernatural non-explanations, but instead continually looks for better explanations.

It's too bad that you have unlimited faith in science and none about God.

The simple story in Genesis solves all the evolutionary mysteries.

Too bad that people have rejected this account (including Darwin) because some preachers in the past have been lured into adopting the Greek view that a perfect God would have created everything perfectly, so that any change would necessarily be a departure from perfection: i.e. creatures have never changed since they were first created. The Bible never taught that.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

It's too bad that you have unlimited faith in science and none about God.

Science neither demands nor rewards blind faith.

The simple story in Genesis solves all the evolutionary mysteries.

At the expense of reason and critical thinking.

Too bad that people have rejected this account (including Darwin) because some preachers in the past have been lured into adopting the Greek view that a perfect God would have created everything perfectly, so that any change would necessarily be a departure from perfection: i.e. creatures have never changed since they were first created. The Bible never taught that.

They reject it because of the evidence, not because of some preachers assertion.

 

[mighty_duck]

It's too bad that you have unlimited faith in science and none about God.

I wouldn't call it faith. It's the simple idea that the best way to answer questions is to study them and find reliable answers. No religious faith is required.

Too bad that people have rejected this account (including Darwin) because some preachers in the past have been lured into adopting the Greek view.

It is too bad that you reject 200 years of science in many fields because you were lured in to adopting a literal view of the Genesis story. It is completely unnecessary (as seen by Christian evolutionists), and makes you out to be a proud ignoramus.

 

[bob b]

They reject it because of the evidence, not because of some preachers assertion.

If you read accounts of Darwin's life as well as his own journals you would find differently.

Darwin was taught in theology school the Greek view that all creatures were created perfectly and have never changed since then.

Thus he expresses his surprise when he discovers that creatures can change (e.g. finches).

The rest is history.

(In a warm little pond, etc.)

Even the great evolutionist Ernst Mayr (In What Evolution Is) could not refrain from repeating the story about religion teaching that creatures never change. He never mentions that the Bible does not teach that. Did he not know?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

If you read accounts of Darwin's life as well as his own journals you would find differently.

Darwin was taught in theology school the Greek view that all creatures were created perfectly and have never changed since then.

Thus he expresses his surprise when he discovers that creatures can change (e.g. finches).

The rest is history.

??? He followed the evidence that he found to its logical conclusion. The Greeks, despite Aristotle's influence throughout the centuries, were not homogenous. Even then there was speculation that creatures changed over time. What are you trying to say?

(In a warm little pond, etc.)

Even the great evolutionist Ernst Mayr (In What Evolution Is) could not refrain from repeating the story about religion teaching that creatures never change. He never mentions that the Bible does not teach that. Did he not know?

The bible might not explicitly state that species remain the same, but neither does it say the opposite. The church has been one of the leading figures in teaching that species were set- even to point of denying that species could go extinct. You are desperate to link science and religion but they are oil and water, Bob.

 

[bob b]

??? He followed the evidence that he found to its logical conclusion. The Greeks, despite Aristotle's influence throughout the centuries, were not homogenous. Even then there was speculation that creatures changed over time. What are you trying to say?

That Darwin was taught in theology school that creatures never change. I never intended to imply that all Greek thought was unanimous, which is not relevent.

The bible might not explicitly state that species remain the same, but neither does it say the opposite. The church has been one of the leading figures in teaching that species were set- even to point of denying that species could go extinct. You are desperate to link science and religion but they are oil and water, Bob.

It is sad that the church absorbed much false Greek thought into their teachings. They are about to do it again by embracing evolution, another Greek idea.

And I was just explaining why some people rejected the account in Genesis when they discovered that change is abundant in the natural world. They apparently were not very familiar with the Bible. The church discourages people from reading the Bible. They prefer that people get their views from the priests.

 

[noguru]

That Darwin was taught in theology school that creatures never change. I never intended to imply that all Greek thought was unanimous, which is not relevent.



It is sad that the church absorbed much false Greek thought into their teachings. They are about to do it again by embracing evolution, another Greek idea.

And I was just explaining why some people rejected the account in Genesis when they discovered that change is abundant in the natural world. They apparently were not very familiar with the Bible. The church discourages people from reading the Bible. They prefer that people get their views from the priests.

And you would prefer we get our views from you.

Oh wait, I think if you were listening in you would defend your stance by saying your view is not new. But can't you also say that about the Geeks and The Roman Catholic Curch.

 

[bob b]

I was wondering if Johnny considers the rise of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system an "evolutionary mystery" akin to sexual reproduction.

I hope we don't get a reply that "abiogenesis is not a part of evolution" as others have offered.

 

[bob b]

It is good to know that the origin of replication and translation (the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system) is still an evolutionary "mystery".

I hope Johnny is honest enough to admit this.

I have confidence he is.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

It is good to know that the origin of replication and translation (the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system) is still an evolutionary "mystery".

I hope Johnny is honest enough to admit this.

I have confidence he is.

As the frontiers of science advance they inevitably uncover new mysteries. We will never be lacking in them.